Landis' last gasp

Originally Posted by jimmypop

Landis forgot to line the pockets of the right people. He wanted to play the game like Armstrong, but only went half way. Unfortunately, the half of the game he forgot is the most important half.

Originally Posted by TheDarkLord

Well, one thing that was established by USADA was that there were some irregularities in the lab. I hope that this entire process at least has the effect of making them a bit more careful in future so that the guilty cannot make such a case to start with.

Originally Posted by C'dale Girl

And BTW... I'm a corporate defense attorney by trade...

Originally Posted by C'dale Girl

Which is exactly why I feel my contribution was to a worthy cause. That's what I was trying to explain before.

Edit: Oh and btw fscyclist, I'm a corporate defense attorney by trade so you're preaching to the choir about American litigation. That's another "cause" I've undertaken. Perhaps that puts my contribution in further perspective for you. Sorry I can't take on the great debate, but work is in overdrive atm (it's 11:15 PM and I'm still working) so I just can't engage in detail with the underlying points.

Originally Posted by C'dale Girl

Well, I contributed and here's what I think . . . not surprised at all as to the result and don't really care about my money. Don't feel frauded at all. Unlike most, I went into it assuming that the overwhelmingly vast majority of pro athletes (any sport) dope in some capacity, some more than others and some sports more than others. My contribution had absolutely NOTHING to do with believing or disbelieving Floyd.

I contributed because I thought the challenge of the process needed (and still does) to take place. The process is a complete farce. The politics involved are disgusting. LA skates for at least 7 years while others are now punished. The application of the punishment varies depending on the individual. It is a complete ad hoc application of rules and the sport will not be taken seriously by many people, including myself, until that changes and the processes in place are followed and carried out uniformly no matter the individual (or their personality) behind the positive test.

For these very reasons, I agree wholeheartedly with your perceptions about the TdF 2006. There absolutely is NO winner in my book.

Landis considering his legal options . . . . well, what else CAN he say? I read that to be nothing more than an attempted "save face" clause, when there's nothing else that can really be said, when he was so incredibly vocal about his case and fighting the system every step of the way. I don't in any way think he was even remotely suggesting that he truly believes there might be (or are) additional legal options.

I will however close by saying that the LeMond mess repulsed me really. Ridiculous. Highly offensive. And, awefully damaging to his PR case, which he was so adamant about keeping in the public eye . . .

But, am I sorry I contributed? NO!!!! Hardly. Because I believe I contributed for the right reason . . . to support a challenge of the system, not my hero or any one individual. Floyd just happened to be the case to do it with, with him being the poster child for the cause. A different poster child would have been better, because I think Floyd's naivity coupled with ego and stubborness are a dangerous combination which results in creating more havoc on his case and for his lawyers. But, unfortunately, I didn't pick the candidate for the cause.

Originally Posted by limerickman

I'm suprised that someone who is clearly a bright intelligent person like you, would make a financial contribution to the defence fund of any cyclist facing an action for doping.
Given the recent history of the sport.

Originally Posted by gpriatko

I worked for very competent and considerate people. It would not have been possible for me to make those kinds of mistakes (even as an undergraduate research assistant) simply because the people who were training me and supervising/reviewing my work were... well, competent and considerate people.

Originally Posted by gpriatko

I'm a scientist and I've done mass spec work but I didn't contribute.

I didn't know how badly the lab had flubbed their work until I listened to the testimony. As far as I can tell their results were worthless.

I can see no excuse for the abysmal quality of the work done by that lab. This kind of incompetence undermines the important work of finding the cheaters and it can ruin the careers of the falsely accused.

Originally Posted by jimmypop

Your assessment is contrary to the assessments of the DPF science experts.

Originally Posted by gpriatko

I'm a scientist and I've done mass spec work but I didn't contribute.

I didn't know how badly the lab had flubbed their work until I listened to the testimony. As far as I can tell their results were worthless.

I can see no excuse for the abysmal quality of the work done by that lab. This kind of incompetence undermines the important work of finding the cheaters and it can ruin the careers of the falsely accused.

I worked for very competent and considerate people. It would not have been possible for me to make those kinds of mistakes (even as an undergraduate research assistant) simply because the people who were training me and supervising/reviewing my work were... well, competent and considerate people.

It's unfortunate but what methods are there for people like us to try to get these labs to get their acts together? We can complain to their funders but we can also contribute to the people who they are testifying against. In an ideal world that wouldn't be my method of choice but maybe it is necessary.

Originally Posted by fscyclist

I figured you were an attorney, thus the parting shot. A lawyer complaining about litigation....well that's a new one. Seriously, hope work calms down for you and no need to respond. I'll continue to believe my posts are ironclad and irrefutable.

Originally Posted by gpriatko

There are two sides to this story. Yes, DPF didn't agree with what Simon Davis said but I'm not sure that they're right. The machine simply is not designed to operate with the lifting ring in place.

The way these things work is that the magnetic field bends the thermally ionized gas streaming off of the sample. The amount of bending depends on the geometry of the field. Putting that big metal lifting ring over the magnets messes up the field. That's just fundamentally wrong.

How familiar are you with what Simon Davis said? What do you think of it?

I was watching the streaming coverage of the hearing and I listened to Davis' testimony and to the response from the lab.

Leaving the lifting ring on the machine was just boneheaded I don't expect that the machine could possibly have been within calibration with the ring in place. If someone ran a test that proved that this would work then OK, that's fine; but no one did. I wouldn't have accepted that data in my lab.

Originally Posted by limerickman

I'm suprised that someone who is clearly a bright intelligent person like you, would make a financial contribution to the defence fund of any cyclist facing an action for doping.
Given the recent history of the sport.